Judgment: 1. Heard submissions advanced at the bar. 2. Present petition questions the order dated 1.11.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner in Criminal Revision Application No.294/2000 (old No.67/1998) as also Criminal Revision No.296/2000 (old 71/1998) whereby both the revision applications were dismissed and record and proceedings of the lower Court was transmitted back. According to the petitioner/original accused no.5 in pending Criminal Case No. 259/1986 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Sangamner, District Ahmednagar, the complainant had prosecuted the accused upon various accusations punishable under sections 166, 192, 199, 200, 466, 470 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that evidence before charge was recorded by the learned trial Magistrate and charge was also framed. The accusations were in respect of alleged collusion between the petitioner and local Revenue Officials for effecting false pencil entry in revenue record which remained operative for years. It appears that learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangamner had ordered inquiry under section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code and had received the police report on or about 24.7.1987. Earlier learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangamner by order dated 7.11.1987 was pleased to dismiss the complaint, but dismissal of the complaint was challenged in Criminal Revision Petition No.372/1989 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Ahmednagar who thought prosecution necessary was pleased to allow the revision petition by order dated 14.2.1993 and consequently, the process came to be issued against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 166, 192, 199, 466 r/w 109 of Indian Penal Code. It is under these circumstances, the complaint proceedings made progress and evidence before charge was also recorded in which trial Magistrate heard evidence of two witnesses on behalf of the complainant. On the basis of evidence led; charge was framed on 20.4.1998 which according to learned advocate for the petitioner is incorrect as it was not based on sound basis against the petitioner. Although, multiple number of accused were prosecuted, it is only the petitioner who preferred the present petition, other co-accused have not filed petition to challenge charge framed in the case. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner contended criticizing that impugned order is contrary to law on the ground that no charges could have been framed on the basis of evidence led. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner contended criticizing that impugned order is contrary to law on the ground that no charges could have been framed on the basis of evidence led. It is further submitted by learned Advocate for the Petitioner that, the dispute is between the members of the joint Hindu Family in respect of property belonging to joint Hindu Family. Name of the petitioner was mutated in possessor column on the basis of crop inspection by Talathi by taking pencil entry which during later period was confirmed by the Tahsildar. Thus, according to the petitioner, no offence has been committed by the petitioner as alleged in the complaint and that there was in fact civil dispute between the members of the Joint Hindu Family. It is under these circumstances, petitioner prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order. 4. Co-accused have been indicted as respondents who wanted to support the case of the petitioner; while learned APP opposed the petition on merits. It is also the contention of learned Advocate for the petitioner that remedy of appeal for the complainant was open under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code to challenge the pencil entries made against the complainant which according to him was false. Instead of resorting to remedy of revenue appeal against the accused, the petitioner has sought quashing of criminal process issued on the basis of evidence led before the charge, so as to submit that the impugned order requiring the petitioner to seek discharge from the case was unsustainable, as charge is already framed; true it is that the accused may be convicted or acquitted at the end of trial. 5. I have considered the averments made in the complaint copy of which is annexed along with the petition. It is alleging that false entry was made in the revenue record without any inquiry or actual inspection of the crop in the agricultural land pursuant to criminal conspiracy. The complainant alleged criminal conspiracy between the accused and cheating of complainant by them on the basis of act of effecting false entry in the revenue record. Background facts of the case cannot be ignored that although earlier the Magistrate had on the basis of report from the police under section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code had dismissed the complaint. The complainant alleged criminal conspiracy between the accused and cheating of complainant by them on the basis of act of effecting false entry in the revenue record. Background facts of the case cannot be ignored that although earlier the Magistrate had on the basis of report from the police under section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code had dismissed the complaint. Said order was judicially interfered with in the revision by Sessions Judge and then complaint proceedings made progress afresh, evidence was recorded before the charge of two witnesses and then charge was framed. Thus trial is in progress. 6. Complainant has alleged continuing offence in respect of alleged entries made from the year 1980-1981 in each year in respect of the agricultural land namely S.No.192/1+2,3 and 4 and also alleged criminal conspiracy between the accused to cause legal injury and loss to the complainant. It is the defence of the petitioner that he is in lawful possession in respect of the disputed agricultural piece of land allotted to him pursuant to the partition in respect of the joint Hindu Family property. Be that as it may, considering the serious nature of accusations and background facts that once though the complaint was dismissed it was directed to be restored in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by learned Additional Sessions Judge and also considering that learned Trial Magistrate had taken evidence and after recording evidence of two witnesses before charge, charges came to be framed on the basis of prima facie view of the case, although remedy for seeking his discharge is not open for the petitioner after the charge is framed, the petitioner may approach learned Trial Magistrate for to drop the Criminal Proceeding, if according to him the charge is groundless. The petitioner may also claim compensation if according to the petitioner prosecution is malicious without any reasonable or probable cause. Remedy is available in view of Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Considering the advanced stage of the criminal trial, pending before learned trial Magistrate I think there would be no propriety or justification for this Court to reappreciate the evidence recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate before the charge so as to take another possible view as that would amount to acting as an Appellate Court to substitute the opinion of the learned Magistrate regarding sufficiency of ground to proceed further with the trial. It is absolutely open for the learned Magistrate to record finding of innocence or guilt as the case may be on merits of the case and/or to award compensation if such plea is successful in the trial in view of Section 250 of Criminal Procedure Code. 7. For all these reasons, in my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Petition must be dismissed. Rule is discharged. 8. At this stage, learned Advocate for the petitioner prayed for grant of stay to the operation of this order. Since the petition itself was pending for more than 10 years for disposal, no further latitude can be granted in favour of the petitioner as it would create further roadblock to the logical and early end to the trial. Prayer is rejected.